Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 11, 2025
In Vitro Application of a Wireless Sensor in Flexion-Extension Gap Balance of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
Published on: May 5, 2023
How does the use of quantified gap-balancing affect component positioning and limb alignment in robotic total knee
Geoffrey T Murphy1,2, Jobe Shatrov3,4, Julian Duong3
1Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, Level 2, 500 Pacific Highway, St Leonards, St. Leonards, Sydney, 2065, Australia. Z5120307@zmail.unsw.edu.au.
Purpose:
This study aimed to compare the effect of an image-based (MAKO) system using a gap-balancing technique with an imageless (OMNIbot) robotic tool utilising a femur-first measured resection technique.
Methods:
A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing primary TKA with a functional alignment philosophy performed by a single surgeon using either the MAKO or OMNIbot robotic systems. In all cases, the surgeon's goal was to create a balanced knee and correct sagittal deformity (eliminate any fixed flexion deformity). Intra-operative data and patient-reported outcomes (PROMS) were compared.
Results:
A total of 207 MAKO TKA and 298 OMNIbot TKAs were analysed. MAKO TKA patients were younger (67 vs 69, p=0.002) than OMNIbot patients. There were no other demographic or pre-operative alignment differences. Regarding implant positioning, in MAKO TKAs the femoral component was more externally rotated in relation to the posterior condylar axis (2.3° vs 0.1°, p<0.001), had less valgus femoral cuts (1.6° vs 2.7° valgus, p<0.001) and more varus tibial cuts (2.4° vs 1.9° varus, p<0.001), and had more bone resected compared to OMNIbot TKAs. OMNIbot cases were more likely to require tibial re-cuts than MAKO (15% vs 2%, p<0.001). There were no differences in femur recut rates, soft tissue releases, or rate of achieving target coronal and sagittal leg alignment between robotic systems. A subgroup analysis of 100 MAKO and 100 OMNIbot propensity-matched TKAs with 12-month follow-up showed no significant difference in OKS (42 vs 43, p=0.7) or OKS PASS scores (83% vs 91%, p=0.1). MAKO TKAs reported significantly better symptoms according to their KOOS symptoms score than patients that had OMNIbot TKAs (87 vs 82, p=0.02) with a higher proportion of KOOS PASS rates, at a slightly longer follow-up time (20 months vs 14 months, p<0.001). There were no other differences in PROMS.
Conclusion:
A gap-balanced technique with an image-based robotic system (MAKO) results in different implant positioning and bone resection and reduces tibial recuts compared to a femur-first measured resection technique with an imageless robotic system (OMNIbot). Both systems achieve equal coronal and sagittal deformity correction and good patient outcomes at short-term follow-ups irrespective of these differences.
